It is encouraging to see folks at least trying to build an alternative.
I see issues with the Flux people trying to implement it via the existing system, which is so far corrupted beyond the checks and balances the founders created I doubt it can come back.

Ideally they should simply build an alternative and give it time to grow, but the problem then is the concept being taken up by enough people to have any effect.
Another issue with Flux is the ability to pass on your vote. In my mind this opens up the possibility for those with an agenda to get more power to enforce said agenda with multiple voting capability.

We'll all wind up going back to the barter system and growing our own veggies at this rate. Maybe it's not the worst thing that could happen. Technology has now created an underclass of people who aren't conversant with it or don't have access to it (for financial reasons or lack of education about computers).

The gap between the extremely rich and the multitudes of people who have almost nothing seems to be getting wider. This wasn't what democracy was meant to facilitate, yet that's what's happened.

"Recently, Australia held a plebiscite for the legalisation of Gay Marriage which passed in the affirmative by a reasonable majority of the population. This article is not intended to debate the pro’s or cons of the gay marriage debate but rather, a new phenomenon we witnessed during the debate, where many large Corporations took a very public and vocal stand, supporting the Yes campaign.

Depending on your stance during the debate, you may have applauded their vocal support however, since when have Corporations taken a moral or political stance over a profitable one? Have we entered into a period of history where Corporations now see themselves as so powerful and integral to our needs that, they assume an authority to direct us on political or moral issues? Corporations exist in this world to make money and, to make as much of it as they possibly can. Societies have never relied on Corporations for guidance on any issue.

In fact, we have numerous Government Bodies created to ensure that Corporations obey accepted government guidelines and regulations because as we all know, Corporations cannot be trusted to choose what is right over what is profitable. We may well remember where this started but I wonder if anyone has envisaged, where it may end?..."

Secondly, any smart corporation who values its customer base will do what it takes to seem to be on their side.

Thirdly, failing this most obvious of business practices could result in 'blackbanning' of their corporations goods or services.

In case you haven't been aware, people are far more connected, internet-savvy, and willing to speak up for their rights.

Recently, EA games learned to their incredible dismay, that people were sick of their sh*t. They released the latest Star Wars game, which had been long awaited by thousands of gamers, but the very first gamers and reviewers soon found out, that you couldn't even choose to play top echelon characters like Darth Vader, without paying extra for the privilege. The game was full of microtransaction opportunities, where gamers who wanted the best characters NOW, could simply buy them, instead of playing many hours of the game (approx 200 hours!) before achieving the same status to allow this. The reviewers and gamers alike, panned the game for the money-hungry BS it was. Fair enough, too, because it was about US$80. Outrage took over and anger at this attempt by EA to manipulate gamers into putting their hands into their pockets AGAIN when they'd already paid a hefty price.

Gamers all sided together, and encouraged other gamers not to buy it, predicting EA would even lower the buying price significantly as a result, but they exhorted their colleagues not to cave in and buy. On Black Friday, the biggest sale opportunity in the USA, these EA Star Wars games were all that were left on the shelves, untouched, unwanted.

Yesterday, I saw a post by someone on the 'net who submitted a photo, showing EA just lowered the price to US$40, half the original price, but people are still so shat off, that they are refusing to buy it on principle.

There are millions of Star Wars fans out there, who would normally just have bought the game, but after being shown it for the ripoff it was, they pretty much made it clear with many letters to EA, and their actions, that that cr*p wouldn't stand, they weren't stupid. Lo and behold, the voice of the outraged, and you can see the power it has if a group decides not to buy a certain product.

This is why corporations will almost always take the most popular line of social voice. EA thought they could get away with it. I will bet there is not one big corporation who didn't take note of this fiasco, and learn from it.

You don't p*ss off your buyers. EVER. It's financial suicide.

So, in short, while I believe there are some businesses that respect human rights and equality quite genuinely, I will also bet my bottom dollar there are others who c ouldn't give a toss, and who only want to keep on the good side of their consumer base. All hail capitalism.

Those who do not stand up for their rights have none... including basic Human Rights.

Corporations by their nature care for one thing only... profit. This is all that matters.

They simply canNOT have empathy, which by definition is a psychopath... which is why the precedent set by the US Supreme Court granting corporations 'personhood' is so scary. They gave all the legal rights and privileges of 'personhood' to psychopathic 'persons' with enormous combined wealth (and therefore power)... even though corporations are by definition DEAD (look at the the word, corporeal, corpse, etc). Now we are getting into old law, set up by the jesuits to gain power. I could go on with legal definitions from very old law dictionaries but anyone interested can look them up for themselves.

There is a reason our government was 'corporatised' (look it up... every political party, department, state government and the federal government itself is listed in the US securities exchange) after this Supreme Court ruling... I will let you join the dots and figure it out...

When a corporation says "ok", then there is an "expected" profit. Let's look at Quantas shall we?
In one airline flight there would be a reasonable percentage of either lbgtiq persons, or persons that are sympathetic to the cause. Now, could you think like a cash register.......if another airline made the call, and they had gone "yes" viral,.......then they would have had a big slice of air travel dollars. Just because the lbgtiqi group would do the usual boycott, punishment, etc. to the other airlines.
Still got your cash register hat on? Then you would see the potential loss of travel dollars.
Really, only fools and children would think that the corporations decision was really, totally, based on feelings, love, right and wrong.. no. Corporations are about dividends to shareholders. $$ is the reason. $$ , that's all.
$$. And you would be a silly person to assume that the corporations who backed the yes vote were doing it through their hearts, not their shareholders wallets.

I still think the marriage equality thing was mostly a smokescreen the federal goverment used to deflect public attention from other stuff they're doing.

I don't see marriage equality as a threat or a harbinger of future problems. It is, as Shazz says, a human rights issue. It won't change my life, that's for sure.

I'm way more concerned with Adani getting a loan from taxpayers when no financial institution on Earth will loan that amount of money to them. They intend to destroy major agricultural areas, and the government are lending them one billion dollars to do it, and throwing in a railroad for good luck.

I'm concerned about the increasing influence of multinational corporations on our political system. It's quite blatant now, and Sam Dastyari is just the tip of a very large iceberg.

Turnbull's incredibly weak, and has no authority within his own party much less with the Australian banking cartels (which is effectively how they operate). But what's the alternative? Bill Shorten? They're both beholden to the same masters - be they Chinese tycoons or Australian ones. When did 'Twiggy' Forrest become qualified to suggest major public policy that has a profound impact on the lives of everyday Australians? Oh, he doesn't need to know about those minor details, he's got shitloads of money, so of course he knows what he's talking about - who needs sociologists or economists, right?

All of them are absolutely disgraceful. The lack of a proper response to the Uluru Statement is disgraceful. Their complacent obsession with their own expense accounts and archaic rituals (Usher of the Black Rod, anyone?) is their primary concern. The ALP/LNP duopoly has to go before progress will be made.

As far as 'what's hidden', it's not hidden in the marriage equality amendments. It's the government's fossil-fuel focused agenda (it's what Gina thinks is best, after all) that concerns me when we could be investing in renewables (like...well everyone else who has any sense, including many former fossil fuel producers). "Snowy River 2.0" my bum - it's smoke and mirrors from Turnbull so we'll all shut up and stop asking about what the gas and electricity companies are really doing (which Turnbull, for all his bluster and finger-waggling is too gutless to legislate against).

Simon M wrote:I still think the marriage equality thing was mostly a smokescreen the federal goverment used to deflect public attention from other stuff they're doing.

I don't see marriage equality as a threat or a harbinger of future problems. It is, as Shazz says, a human rights issue. It won't change my life, that's for sure.

I'm way more concerned with Adani getting a loan from taxpayers when no financial institution on Earth will loan that amount of money to them. They intend to destroy major agricultural areas, and the government are lending them one billion dollars to do it, and throwing in a railroad for good luck.

I'm concerned about the increasing influence of multinational corporations on our political system. It's quite blatant now, and Sam Dastyari is just the tip of a very large iceberg.

Turnbull's incredibly weak, and has no authority within his own party much less with the Australian banking cartels (which is effectively how they operate). But what's the alternative? Bill Shorten? They're both beholden to the same masters - be they Chinese tycoons or Australian ones. When did 'Twiggy' Forrest become qualified to suggest major public policy that has a profound impact on the lives of everyday Australians? Oh, he doesn't need to know about those minor details, he's got shitloads of money, so of course he knows what he's talking about - who needs sociologists or economists, right?

All of them are absolutely disgraceful. The lack of a proper response to the Uluru Statement is disgraceful. Their complacent obsession with their own expense accounts and archaic rituals (Usher of the Black Rod, anyone?) is their primary concern. The ALP/LNP duopoly has to go before progress will be made.

As far as 'what's hidden', it's not hidden in the marriage equality amendments. It's the government's fossil-fuel focused agenda (it's what Gina thinks is best, after all) that concerns me when we could be investing in renewables (like...well everyone else who has any sense, including many former fossil fuel producers). "Snowy River 2.0" my bum - it's smoke and mirrors from Turnbull so we'll all shut up and stop asking about what the gas and electricity companies are really doing (which Turnbull, for all his bluster and finger-waggling is too gutless to legislate against).

Sorry, rant over.

No apology necessary, excellent rant.
Yes, it is a distraction, but it is also an excellent example of government going beyond its powers. The fact is there HAS to be a referendum to change the Marriage Act by our founding law as explained in previous pages... but you watch, they will ignore that and do as they want and screw the checks and balances on government power designed by the founders of the Commonwealth.

Today's politicians answer to the Bankster Cartel, not the people of the commonwealth. They are only 'allowed' into power if they are corrupt and therefor easily controlled.